Which is exactly the point that I was making that Mad King George was trying to establish a Fedual system here in the States. Where all the fruits of labor would be solely owned by the Crown and those that left the lands would become outlaws.

I disagree about it being mostly a money issue.

Is all this mumbo jumbo governmental bullshit cheerleading supposed to make the
fact that the Rights of American Indians should have taken a priority in colonialism ?

Those wonderful founding people Murdered, Butchered, Raped and Burned fellow human beings ?
Where did their Rights go.....out the damn buffalo's fart hole to be lost forever on the plains

Discovery, Conquest, and Treaty-making (1532-1828), Indian people were recognized
"as legitimate entities capable of dealing with the European nations by treaty"
and this became the basis for defining legal and political relationships among the parties.

Gee that didn't work so well - so much for giving others Rights, in our own backyard no less.

Once the land was aquired the Congress disolved the previous treaties to incorporate the new American possitions therefore not a treaty violation.

Which is the problem with institutionalized rights. They can be dissolved by the institution that set them up.

absurd. and extremely unfair as well to even consider that i may have been bamboozled by anything or anybody

we consent to authority every day that we chose to remain in america and not relinguish our citizenship which you have ever right to do if you so chose

do you choose to remain an american and live in america?

At one time in the not too recent past, all those rights were trampled on in the country that justified its own rebellion against legal authority by declaring "All men are created equal."

King George was trying to establish a Fedual system here in the States

Those wonderful founding people Murdered, Butchered, Raped and Burned fellow human beings ?

Gee that didn't work so well - so much for giving others Rights, in our own backyard no less.

We can argue the trail of tears as violation of treaties

Wrong Jackson. Andrew Jackson was the President. Stonwall, would come later in the Century durring the War between the States.

Wrong Jackson

Trust me Terrorists don't have your same sensiblites.

No, they still had the right to be negoitiated with, however, it was not exercised.

They willfully did not negoitate because it was not in the Cogress's interest.

Hancock was a Merchant, so was Revere, Adams, and so on. Though the majority of the members of the the Contential Congress were wealthy not all were.

The point that many of us were making though the Enlightenment ideals were "lead" by the established class, it was the ordinary man that brought it to life. It was the common man that believed these ideas to be true, that these rights to be held and wanted them perserved for there families that they would lay all on the line to make it happen. It is the right of Humans to hope and dream and to want more for those to follow us.

Sorry I got him con fused with some other guy...I never studied much american history.

The native indians had Natural Law and Rights long before the white man came.

Man has always fought over territory and resources, humans are animals after all .

Diva, I was refering to the Department of Indian of Affairs, which is part of the Dept of the Interior. Which was supposed to renegoitiate the terms of the treaty on behalf of the People of the US (Congress) or the Them I was refering too.

The point I was making was that the American Indians that knew how to use the system were successful in keeping there lands. In this case.

I am just curious in how those who feel so bad for the treatment that the native Americans received, if they had any idea what the native Americans were doing to each other?

paint them as innocent, peace loving, living with mother nature

After several thousand years of hypocritically calling ourselves "civilized", isn't it about time to grow up and become better animals? I've always believed we had a lot of potential; maybe it's time to realize some of it.

This was so beautifully put, that I think it bears repeating.

Governments, corporations, and, I will say it, religion are predominantly institutions, which are constructs of the human mind. These institutions are based on competition of resources and comparative value, which creates a "power over dynamic". In this power over structure, the institutions have the power, and the people running them (we will call them Oliver) and the institutions no longer become a servant of the people who set them up, but rather a tool for enslavement (enslavement is too strong of a word, but I couldn't think of a better one).

Negate competition for resources and comparative value, and you have room for natural law.

There is a difference between rights and entitlement, if seen philosophically. Which frequently happens when seen through the lens of legality. "Natural Rights" are based upon ideals, while "entitled rights" are generally based upon idealized wrong-doing. "You did me wrong so you owe me".

The War of American Independence was not solely a tax issue. It was more based on the fact that the Colonial American's greviencies weren't being redressed by Parliement. That they were being treated not as free English Subjects and property owners but, as Fedual Serfs. It was approxiamately 10 years of negoitiation before any shots were fired in anger. You also neglect that the English king was going place the Colonies under Martial Law and garrison troops in the private homes of the Americans. If it had any economic implication it was that the Americans (freemen) did not wish to become Economic Slaves to the Crown.

That is based on a misunderstanding of the words.

Institution4. Sociology. a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, as marriage: the institution of the family.
5. any established law, custom, etc.
6. any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture.

A government is not necessarily an institution. Neither is a corporation, or a religion. At least, not as we think of one. Each of those are a social coming-together of like-minded individuals, for what was originally a social purpose. Government institutions were originally to help a king or ruler govern his people better, and then to help people organise themselves better. Corporate institutions (corporation aggregate) were originally set up with specific aims and goals, usually to help a certain group, such as to support a town's widows and orphans, raising their upkeep via trade. Religious institutions were originally set up to help the people both have better access to experts in their religion to know how to best keep their religion and to know the leniencies for those in difficulty, and also to decide disputes between people, and to support those in need, such as visiting the sick, setting up schools, providing charity for the poor, etc.

If you negate competition for resources, then no-one has a right to anything, and then if your family need more land to feed your kids, and so does your neighbour, do you really think you'll both just say "oh, well, we'll let our families starve?" Hardly. You'll fight each other for the land you both need to feed your kids.

If you negate comparative value, then nothing has any more value than anything else. 1 chicken has the same value as 10,000 chickens. No-one will barter a cow for a chicken, if the number of chickens he gets for a cow keeps changing.

September 2007 the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The declaration outlined the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples,
as well as their rights to identity, culture, language, employment, health, education, etc.

Four nations voted against it: the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.